A.S. ARUNACHALA NADAR AND ANR. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is by the first and the second accused in C.G. No. 555 of 1956 on the file of the Additional First Glass Magistrate, Madurai. They were convicted for an offence under Section 16(1)(a) read with Sections 7(1) and 2(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 46 of the Rules framed under the Act. The first accused was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 75 and the second accused to Rs. 25. The convictions and sentences were upheld on appeal by the Sessions Judge, Madurai.

(2.) THE first accused is a ghee and butter merchant at Madurai and the second accused is a clerk under him. On 28th August, 1956, P.W. 1, the Food Inspector of Madurai Municipality, went to the shop of the first accused and purchased from the second accused, his clerk, 4 1/2 palams of butter. The first accused was not present then. The second accused sold to P.W. 1 the required quantity. P.W. 1, the Food Inspector, intimated to the clerk (second accused) that he was making the purchase for the purpose of analysis. He served on him a notice, the original of Exhibit P -2, and has obtained his acknowledgement on the back of Exhibit P -2. After this he observed the usual formalities as required by the Rules. He divided the quantity of butter purchased into three parts, sealed them in three bottles, gave one bottle to the second accused and retained the other two bottles with himself and then sent them to the Municipality for being sent to the Public Analyst. The sample bottle that was intended for analysis was received by the Public Analyst on 1st September, 1956 and as is the practice for the Public Analyst to keep the sample butter sent for analysis in a frigidaire the butter was kept in the frigidaire and was taken up for examination on 31st October, 1956. The moisture content was examined and it was found to contain 23 per cent, and as regards the fat content it contained 14 per cent, of fat not derived from milk or cream. Under the Rules more than 16 per cent, of moisture and any quality foreign fats are prohibited.

(3.) IT is clear from the report of the Public Analyst and the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, that the sample of the butter got from the first accused was adulterated. The first accused in his statement does not deny the sale of the sample cutter to P.W. 1 the Food Inspector but admits the same and states that he collects butter through his agents from the houses in different villages outlying Virudhunagar, Tirthangal, Rajapalayam and Sankarankoil. The butter so collected by the agents and what is called Swadeshi butter was prepared by churning the curd by the hand -process by the villagers and the butter that floats over normally consists of a certain percentage o moisture and that this percentage of moisture in the butter got out of the hand -process cannot be avoided. The butter thus collected by the agents is pooled over and sent to the shop of the first accused for sale. The general public as well as the purchasers are quite aware of the nature, substance or quality of the butter that is sold in his shop for these 18 years and that no prejudice is caused to such purchasers, much less any false representation was ever made to them.